Science obviously involves observation and experiment but I think ultimately a reasoned analysis without bias must be necessary to review what truth is.

That is the problem.

Why is it so hard for some to keep an open mind that DNA may have been designed by a supreme intelligence? as you put it :

to create meaningful directed information?

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

Forgive me for not reading your entire post bpv. I'd like to respond to your first statement.
First of all, DNA CAN be added to a genome, via viral agents or some types of mutations.
Furthermore, a large portion of our genome is "junk dna" serving no apparent purpose. How do you explain that?

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

Oh! my goodness how can you ask such a question to linn I guess few months before she was a one lady army fighting against evolution.She is a theist but doesn't accept evolution for sure.

too cute!! Thanx for calling me an army lady

David I do not accept the theory that life evolved by chance on its own w/o direction from God.

I believe in "speciation" and adaptation, and any consistently passed on traits w/I an isolated population through genetic inheritance. An that sterility becomes the limiting factor. Some creatures are meant to be what they are, ie feline, canine, etc according to specific codes.

Even though dogs can vary widely in their overall size and facial characteristics, color, personality etc thay are still canine they never evolved to an other. and its been a (loooong) time to see if they would start sprouting wings or saying "meow" or something. Does any one get what I am saying ever? there is limitation as to what can be "evolved"

I try to keep an open mind, if ever I can see proof that someting is evolving in to an other creature not related or entirely new. and is able to produce viable offspring through many generations that evolve even further I would believe it. But I would still believe its God directed. So far its not happening.

Hey, The 8th day is yet to come who knows what will start evolving?

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

Most of it truly is "junk" or unused DNA. The mapping of the human genome has gone a long way towards proving this.
One good observable example of unused DNA is exons, though the junk DNA I'm talking about is primarily large gene sequences that don't even get translated.

Most of it truly is "junk" or unused DNA. The mapping of the human genome has gone a long way towards proving this.One good observable example of unused DNA is exons, though the junk DNA I'm talking about is primarily large gene sequences that don't even get translated.

Like inert material?

But maybe we will find out different in the future.

Like now the find after all, the appendics actually does have a function.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

I don't really think that junk DNA would still be there if it was completely useless. ANd I have read recently a paper that shows that genes that nuclear localisation is important for gene expression. SO junk DNA may not be coding for enzymes but it may have a structural purpose.

Junk DNA is probably a very poorly chosen name for this. On of the worst misnomer in biology.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Canalon wrote:Junk DNA is probably a very poorly chosen name for this. On of the worst misnomer in biology.

You are absolutely right.

As Linn stated I too think some new function will be discovered later.

Discoveries are just started only. Miles to go.

Its so exciting to think of what we will learn in the future.

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these".

bpv wrote:Certainly mutations do produce some novel genetic changes but a mutation has never been known to add information to an already complex genetic system. As the field of genetics has advanced to the present position, we today know that all the genetic information in the organism's body is coded with complex genetic combinations. All the bodily manifestations, structure, function and behavior are the result of the Genetic codes.

Any minute change that can take place in the body structure of an organism can be only as a result of numerous genetic recombinations in the information system. For the acquisition of a particular characteristic or the formation of an organ (adaptation) or to enable the existing organ to perform new function (exaptation); a drastic change needs to occur in the genes or the genetic material. Additional information is needed to be added to the existing genetic code for the above sort of acquisition of characteristic. The question arises on which was formed first? The information or the characteristics. The study in the genetics itself reveals that each characteristic is the result of genetic information. This means for an evolution to occur the information must be formed first. The question again arises on how, specific genetic information were formed for the development of specialized organs like heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and the master controller brain.

Any student of natural science can understand, and knows very well that a variation in the order of the genetic material may result in a change in the meaning of information and the coded information is specific to each particular organism. A minor change in the chain of codes can never lead to the evolution of a species but rather a focused change must take place in the whole information system for a desired modification to take place in the organism’s body structure. As discussed the probability of forming an ordered structure as result of recombination without intelligence is nearly equal to zero, especially when the change is focused towards a desired result.

The same phenomenon is found in all the organisms but with different order. Imagine the genetic change that has to take place in an organism to modify its external or internal structure. Or how much information is required to form a code to develop the forelimbs into feathers, the fins into fore limbs, irrational - instinctive organism to a rational - creative one. What can be the source of information? Is the impulse from the nature enough to create meaningful directed information?

A minimum reasoning is enough to guess the intelligence of the car maker who has designed the car capable of racing at a speed of 100 or 200 miles per hour. Especially when there is no chance of such an efficient motor vehicle be created in a factory by chance or without the application of expert engineering principles.

Darwinism never supports changes that take place thousand of times faster to skip links but the accumulation of variations. The missing links doesn’t mean that the evolution has taken place thousands of time faster. If has taken place faster it cannot be explained in evolution but punctuated equilibrium. Neither the former nor the latter has enough support from genetics, considering the information criteria.

The cranial endocast studies conducted in Archaeopteryx fossil revealed that it was a completely developed Ave, fully capable of flight and well developed avian model circulatory and nervous system.

Coelacanth that was considered to be a link between the Pisces and Amphibians was explained as extinct by evolutionists till 1938 when the fisherman caught it species (Latimeria chalumnae) from the African marine waters. The studies on the live specimen had made all contradictions with the pre-conceptions and revealed having no relationship with the amphibians and were found to be a complete Pisces.

The Appendix that was considered to be vestigial is found to have lymphatic tissue and helps control the bacteria entering the intestine. Suppose the many so called vestigial examples are confirmed, they can never be a support to evolution but devolution.

The above cited are only few, among the many contradictions to the paleontological and physiological studies for the confirmation of evolution. What evolutionary explanation can we give to the multifarious and unique specimens of life, and the formation of intricate meaningful information coded in them. Science obviously involves observation and experiment but I think ultimately a reasoned analysis without bias must be necessary to review what truth is.